Am Dienstag, den 18.04.2017, 22:34 +0000 schrieb Guenter Milde: > It is an undocumented internal. At least some developers don't bother > about > the actual LaTeX written, so the difference between specialchar and > literal > char went unnoticed until now.
Note that I am not talking about the difference between the unicode
char and the special char. I am talking about the fact that the special
char outputs \ldots, not \dots. This I would not call "undocumented".
> > It is obvious that the special char
> > inset outputs \ldots, so I need to redefine that macro. Would the
> > special char output \dots, I would have re-defined that.
>
> What would you have done, if both, the literal character and the
> specialchar had output \dots?
I would have refefined \dots and used \ldots in ERT for the unbalanced
dots, probably.
> > In any case, we should not replace one macro by the other behind
> > the
> > back of users, just because they are equivalent by default (outside
> > math, that is).
>
> They are equivalent in text on purpose.
So what? They can be redefined, and we have to consider that.
> > > I read a bit about \ldots, \dots and friends (in the LaTeX
> > > companion), and it seems now that the situation is not very
> > > simple.
> > > It looks to me like a case where the SpecialChar inset should
> > > output
> > > different things depending on the language.
> > I don't think so. Rather than that, we could consider to support
> > the
> > ellipsis (or xellipsis) package, or csquotes, or a combination of
> > those.
>
> The ellipsis package ignores \ldots (in both, implementation and
> documentation). I am not sure whether this is intedend or just an
> oversight.
>
> We can support the ellipsis package by using \textellipsis or \dots
> as
> LICR for the ellipsis character. \usepackage{ellipsis} in the user
> preamble should also solve your problem with […].
Look, I am talking about backwards compatibility. I can easily deal
with future documents, but I do not want to edit hundreds of old
documents because you insist to let lyx2lyx change \ldots to \dots.
So please make sure lyx2lyx generates identical LaTeX output if you
insist to ditch the special char.
Jürgen
> > > What is a good reference on the subject?
> > The ellipsis manual, for a start:
> > http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/ellipsis/ellipsis.pdf
>
> I studied this and appended a test document to the ticket.
> http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/10543
>
> Günter
>
>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
